McCain II Strikes Out
November 9th, 2012Lesson Learned? Doubtful.
I looked at the news today and saw that people are still wondering why Romney lost. It’s funny; Republicans criticize other people for being PC, but now we’re guiltier than anyone. No one will say it: Americans will not turn out to vote for a Mormon. Mormonism is a non-Christian cult, and many Christians have had negative experiences with it. I voted for Romney because I believed that a Mormon who shares our goals was better than a hostile atheist pretending to be a Christian, but it looks like many Christians felt differently.
People are talking about the Tea Party as though it were dead, and as though it was a weakening influence. That’s ridiculous. The Tea Party had it right. They wanted a Christian. Unfortunately, the people who control the primaries are not very conservative, and they don’t care about principle. They are carnal people who only think about numbers. They do not understand the minds of the base.
If we had run a Christian with a little personal pizzazz, we would probably have won. Millions of people who decided not to vote would probably have gotten in their cars and stood in line.
It’s sad. Herman Cain had it all, but it turned out he had a sex problem that made Bill Clinton look like a monk. He did us tremendous harm by lying about his past. We decided Bachmann and Santorum wouldn’t appeal to the mindless middle. We didn’t have the guts to draft Palin. We did exactly what we did in 2008. We picked the person we thought would please the center and left. I wonder if anyone in the nomination machine will learn from this.
You don’t have to be a liberal to win. You have to be an inspiration. The public can’t tell liberal from conservative. If you sound like you know what you’re doing–and you don’t belong to a weird cult–you can win. The same people who elected Bush twice elected Obama twice. If political complexion meant anything, that could not happen.
Romney won in Massachusetts when he ran for governor. That’s wonderful, but Massachusetts is not the entire United States. People there are not very interested in God. Romney had to win in places like Florida and Virginia, where people actually go to church.
I wonder who the GOP will nominate next time. Maybe a homosexual. Unlike rats in a behavioral experiments, we run toward negative stimuli. We went left and got zapped twice, so we’ll probably go left again.
You can’t out-left the left. They’re better at it than we are. It only makes sense that voters picked a real liberal over a lukewarm conservative with a liberal veneer.
We’ll probably nominate Christie next time. He’s against gun rights, and he doesn’t seem to have much understanding of loyalty, but he’s a brilliant speaker, and he won a gubernatorial race in a liberal state, so like McCain and Romney, he must be a conservative liberals will vote for, right? Yeah! Slam dunk!
For four years, I’ve been saying the US was about to sink to the level of Italy or Greece. I still see that happening. If you’re worried, get close to God. He concerns himself with individuals more than nations.
November 13th, 2012 at 12:28 PM
“Herman Cain had it all”
Umm…no. Cain was asked about the Palestinian “right of return”. He said, “That’s something that should be negotiated…I don’t think [the Israelis] have a big problem with people returning.”
Cain was asked whether he would free all the terrorists at Gitmo in return for one American military hostage. He said, “I could see myself authorizing that kind of transfer”
True, both statements came with some waffling qualifications that I’ve left out. But even in context they’re incredibly bad. You can’t be an American political blogger and not know what “right of return” means and implies. Everyone knows “we don’t negotiate with terrorists”. These are easy questions with definite, zero-political-risk answers. What else does Cain not know how to handle?
Cain was an ignorant hack, or an utterly spineless equivocator, or both. Not your country’s keeper. Even Obama is too smart to talk like that.
BTW, if you didn’t know about these Cain blunders, congratulations! You are not a politics junkie! As such, you are eligible for spiritual and mental well-being. For my part, I wasn’t aware Cain had lied about his sordid sexual past. Anyway he’s gone, and no regrets.
November 13th, 2012 at 1:15 PM
I can’t recall any President who had a really satisfactory stance on Israel, so I’m not as upset by these things as you are. Whatever Cain may have said while running, I think he would have listened to his base once in office. Maybe I’m wrong. Anyway, I would have preferred a hypothetical scandal-free Cain to the real Romney, and I really believe Mormonism kept us out of the White House.
As for the terrorist trade, Israel does it all the time, unless they’ve changed.
I think Cain would have appointed good judges, worked to keep taxes low, fought spending, opposed the lunatic social agenda, and worked with Netanyahu instead of against him. I would consider that an acceptable result.
Cain’s performance on his sexual record was really shocking. It was as though he had no idea the press would challenge him and produce his accusers.
I should have said “Cain seemed to have it all, until he exploded in bimbo eruptions.”
November 13th, 2012 at 3:32 PM
“Cain would have appointed good judges, worked to keep taxes low, fought spending, opposed the lunatic social agenda, and worked with Netanyahu instead of against him.”
Maybe so. Yeah, you’re probably right about all that. And really, everyone negotiaties with terrorists, not just Israel. But you’re supposed to play hard to get!
I’m just really, really uncomfortable with a guy who says he’s going to be President, and then he’s going to snap his fingers and make everyone tell him what the President is supposed to know. Even with the best of principles, incompetence can be fatal.
That said, I’d have voted Cain over Obama, for sure.